The Election Commission (EC) has failed India. In this election that could determine the future of India, the EC has failed the litmus test of appearing to be fair. Far from standing up to the powerful so as to frustrate their attempt at poll capture, I believe the EC has appeared either complicit, or helpless, or both.
I have waited long before writing these lines. Over the last few weeks, as I travelled through the country to campaign for various candidates, my friends and colleagues kept asking me to write about what they perceive as the partisan conduct of the Election Commission of India. I have resisted, barring a few social media posts. I believe that when judging the Election Commission, one should err on the side of caution.
Some of this may have to do with my unstated attachment to the Election Commission. In my previous birth as a psephologist, I wrote and spoke about India’s democratic achievements. I credited the EC with instituting a system of largely free and fair elections and celebrated this institution for gaining in independence, so rare in our country.
I remember speaking to the UK’s newly appointed Election Commission (yes, they did not have an Election Commission till 2001) about how they could learn from the Indian experience!
There was much more to it. I have believed that when judging a quasi-judicial body like the EC, the benefit of doubt must be given to it. The EC has to tread political minefields and take decisions that are very complex. Besides, the Commission cannot defend itself in public against unfair criticism. Unlike most of my friends and colleagues, I have resisted the temptation to blame election outcomes on the EVMs. Even during the current election, I defended the EC against the unfounded allegation that the election schedule was insensitive to the Muslims.
Also read: Gujarat elections are the lowest point in the history of the Election Commission
My sense of pride in, and loyalty towards, the Election Commission as an institution mandates that I must speak up now. Looking at the way the EC has conducted itself during this election, I cannot but agree with a group of former civil servants who wrote to the President of India that the Commission faces a “crisis of credibility” and that “the week-kneed conduct of the ECI” has “reduced the credibility of this constitutional body to an all-time low”.
Under Article 324 of the Constitution, the EC enjoys a broad-spectrum mandate to ensure free and fair elections. But its principal asset is its moral authority as a neutral and no-nonsense referee in the political slugfest. The EC earned this authority over the last three decades. I fear that the current EC may have surrendered this most valuable asset.
Let me mention just a few instances. The first set of issues relates to the election schedule. Ever since the infamous rescheduling of the EC’s press conference, journalists joke about looking at the PM’s schedule to find out the timing of the EC’s declaration of elections. While I do not subscribe to all kind of conspiracy theories about the election schedule, I cannot think of a non-political explanation for the four-phase scheduling of Odisha, for example. The Commission may have good reasons to do what it did, but what matters is that the EC has given ample reasons to entertain a suspicion that the poll schedule is not inconvenient to the powers-that-be.
The second set of issues relates to the NAMO biopic, a web serial and the NaMo TV channel. Now, given the brazen nature of the violation and the Commission’s procrastination, what registered was not the EC’s action on biopic but that the EC was trying to dodge the NAMO TV issue, if not looking for some technicality to gloss over this matter.
Also read: Least political parties can do is treat Election Commission with same respect as judiciary
Third, there appears to be a stark inconsistency, if not double standard, in the EC’s orders to transfer top police officials in the opposition-ruled Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal, but not in Tamil Nadu, despite repeated demands from the opposition. The EC did sound stern when I-T raids were launched against opposition leaders in the middle of the elections, but it took no action.
A similar duality appears to be at work in the Commission’s alacrity to announce a bypoll in Gujarat (eventually stayed by the Supreme Court) but dragging its feet over a similar announcement of bypolls in Tamil Nadu that the regime did not wish to face. Again, there could be legitimate explanations for each of these, but put together it has created an impression that the action or inaction of the Commission can be linked to the political requirements of the regime.
The fourth instance is about the opposition’s demand for VVPAT audit in 50 per cent booths. Once the opposition had climbed down from its demand for paper ballot, it was for the EC to go out of its way to address their legitimate apprehensions about the VVPAT. Instead, the EC adopted an obdurate stance and made an astounding claim before the apex court that counting 50 per cent VVPAT slips will take 5-6 days (while counting all paper ballots used to take two days!). The Commission came across, quite unnecessarily in my view, as trying hard to hide something.
The fifth set of cases pertains to objectionable remarks by political leaders, mostly from the ruling party. History seems to have come full circle from the days when the Supreme Court used to examine the limits to the EC’s assertion of its inherent powers to this week when the CJI had to remind the EC that it was not a toothless body. The EC’s seemingly mild reprimand to Yogi Adityanath on the “Modi Sena” remarks drew national derision. Its letter to the President on Rajasthan governor’s transgression appears to have gone unnoticed. Yes, it did take action against Yogi Adityanath, Mayawati, Azam Khan, but only when it was pushed by the Supreme Court. Instead of enhancing the Commission’s reputation, this action weakened its moral authority.
The Commission’s abdication of its constitutional responsibility is most evident in its apparent helplessness in the face of open defiance by Amit Shah and the Prime Minister himself. The EC shut its eyes to the PM’s extraordinary address to the nation on the launch of the A-SAT missile test on a flimsy technicality that it was not broadcast by Doordarshan and overlooked the substantial question of whether he could make this announcement in the first place.
Also read: This is not an easy time to be the Election Commission of India. Here’s why
Narendra Modi openly called for vote in the name of the soldiers killed in Pulwama, which clearly violates this EC’s own advisory on not using security forces during elections. And the Wardha speech where he painted the Congress as anti-Hindu is not just a violation of the Model Code of Conduct, but also flies in the face of the Supreme Court verdict and the regular criminal law of the land.
Amit Shah publicly said his party will expel infiltrators if they are not Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist. The EC (and even the Supreme Court) had nothing to say in this regard. Your moral authority is tested when you are up against the most powerful. Sadly, to my mind, the EC has been found wanting in this one critical virtue.
So, as an old friend and admirer of the institution of the Election Commission of India, I beseech the three gentlemen who comprise the EC today: Please don’t squander the great legacy you have inherited. And if you cannot defend the Constitution, please resign.
The author is National President of Swaraj India. The views are personal.